Vena cava encirclement predicts difficult native hepatectomy

Temporary Portocaval Shunt Provides Superior Intraoperative Hemodynamics and Reduces Blood Loss and Duration of Surgery in Live Donor Liver Transplantation: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, blood loss, renal function, and duration of surgery with and without temporary portocaval shunt (TPCS) in live donor liver transplantation (LT) recipients. Secondary objectives were postoperative early graft dysfunction, morbidity, mortality, total intensive care unit, and hospital stay.

BACKGROUND

Blood loss during recipient hepatectomy for LT remains a major concern. Routine use of TPCS during LT is not yet elucidated.

METHODS

This study is a single-center, open-label, randomized control trial. The sample size was calculated based on intraoperative blood loss. After exclusion, a total of 60 patients, 30 in each arm (TPCS vs no TPCS) were recruited in the trial.

RESULTS

The baseline recipient and donor characteristics were comparable between the groups. The median intraoperative blood loss ( P = 0.004) and blood product transfusions ( P < 0.05) were significantly less in the TPCS group. The TPCS group had significantly improved intraoperative hemodynamics in the anhepatic phase as compared with the no TPCS group ( P < 0.0001), requiring significantly less vasopressor support. This led to significantly better renal function as evidenced by higher intraoperative urine output in the TPCS group ( P = 0.002). Because of technical simplicity, the TPCS group had significantly fewer inferior vena cava injuries (3.3 vs 26.7%, P = 0.026) and substantially shorter hepatectomy time and total duration of surgery (529.4 ± 35.54 vs 606.83 ± 48.13 min, P < 0.0001). The time taken for normalization of lactate in the immediate postoperative period was significantly shorter in the TPCS group (median, 6 vs 13 h; P = 0.04). Although postoperative endotoxemia, major morbidity, 90-day mortality, total intensive care unit, and hospital stay were comparable between both groups, tolerance to enteral feed was earlier in the TPCS group.

CONCLUSIONS

In live donor LT, TPCS is a simple and effective technique that provides superior intraoperative hemodynamics and reduces blood loss and duration of surgery.

Perceptions of surgical difficulty in liver transplantation: A European survey and development of the Pitié-Salpêtrière classification

BACKGROUND

Significant variations exist regarding the definition of difficult liver transplantation. The study goals were to investigate how liver transplant surgeons evaluate the surgical difficulty of liver transplantation and to use the identified factors to classify liver transplantation difficulty.

METHODS

A Web-based online European survey was presented to liver transplant surgeons. The survey was divided into 3 parts: (1) participant demographics and practices; (2) various situations based on recipient, liver disease, tumor treatment, and technical factors; and (3) 8 real-life clinical vignettes with different levels of complexity. In part 3 of the survey, respondents were asked whether they would perform liver transplantation but were not aware that these patients eventually underwent liver transplantation.

RESULTS

A total of 143 invites were sent out, and 97 (67.8%) participants completed the survey. Most participants considered previous spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, previous supra-mesocolic surgery, hypertrophy of segment I, and obesity to be recipient factors for high-difficulty liver transplantation. Most participants considered liver transplantation to be challenging in patients with Budd-Chiari syndrome, Kasai surgery, polycystic liver disease, diffuse portal vein thrombosis, and a history of open hepatectomy. The proportion of participants indicating that liver transplantation was warranted varied across the 8 cases, from 69% to 100%. Our classification of the surgical difficulty of liver transplantation employed these recipient-related, surgical history-related, and liver disease-related variables and 3 difficulty groups were identified: low, intermediate, and high difficulty groups.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides an overview of the surgical difficulty of various situations in liver transplantation that could be useful for further benchmark and textbook outcome studies.

Comparison of the modified piggyback with standard piggyback and conventional orthotopic liver transplantation techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In conventional orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT), the recipient's retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) is completely clamped and replaced with the donor IVC. The piggyback technique has been used to preserve venous return, either via an end-to-side or standard piggyback (SPB), or via a side-to-side or modified piggyback (MPB) anastomosis, using a venous cuff from the recipient hepatic veins with partially clamping and preserves the recipient's inferior vena cava. However, whether these piggyback techniques improve the efficacy of OLT is unclear. To address the low quality of the available evidence, we performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conventional, MPB, and SPB techniques.

METHODS

Literature was searched in Medline and Web of Science databases for relevant articles published until 2021 without any time restriction. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the intra- and postoperative outcomes of conventional OLT, MPB, and SPB techniques.

RESULTS

Forty studies were included, comprising 10,238 patients. MPB and SPB had significantly shorter operation times and fewer transfusions of red blood cell and fresh frozen plasma than conventional techniques. However, there were no differences between MPB and SPB in operation time and blood product transfusion. There were also no differences in primary non-function, retransplantation, portal vein thrombosis, acute kidney injury, renal dysfunction, venous outflow complications, length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, 90-day mortality rate, and graft survival between the three techniques.

CONCLUSION

MBP and SBP techniques reduce the operation time and need for blood transfusion compared with conventional OLT, but postoperative outcomes are similar. This indicates that all techniques can be implemented based on the experience and policy of the transplant center.

Subjective Difficulty Scale in Liver Transplantation: A Prospective Observational Study

The predictive value of a subjective difficulty scale (DS) after surgical procedures is unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of a DS after liver transplantation (LT) and to identify predictors of difficulty. Surgeons prospectively evaluated the difficulty of 441 consecutive liver transplantations from donation after brain death at the end of the surgery by using a DS from 0 to 10 (“the easiest to the hardest you can imagine”). DS was associated with severe morbidity. The risk of graft loss at 1 year remained unchanged from 0 to 6 but increased beyond 6. Graft survival and patient survival of group with DS 7–10 was significantly impaired compared to groups with DS: 0–3 or DS: 4–6 but were significantly impaired for the group with DS: 7–10. Independent predictors of difficult LT (DS ≥ 7) were annular segment 1, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, retransplantation beyond 30 days, portal vein thrombosis, and ascites. Of them, ascites was a borderline non-significant covariate (p = .04). Vascular complications occurred more often after difficult LT (20.5% vs. 5.9%), whereas there was no difference in the other types of complications. DS can be used to tailor monitoring and anticipate early complications. External validation is needed.

The learning curve for piggyback liver transplantation: identifying factors challenging surgery

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to quantify the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation and to identify factors that impact the operative time and blood transfusion during the learning curve.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on consecutive cases of patients' first piggyback liver transplantations that were performed by a single surgeon. The learning curve for the operative time was evaluated using the cumulative sum method.

RESULTS

There were 181, consecutive, first-time piggyback liver transplantations. The median operative time was 345 minutes (range: 180-745 minutes) with a median transfusion rate of 4 packed red blood cell units (range: 0-23 units). The cumulative sum learning curve identified 3 phases: an initial phase (1-70 piggyback liver transplantations), a plateau phase (71-101 piggyback liver transplantations), and a stable phase (102-181 piggyback liver transplantations). Over the 3 phases, there were significant decreases in the median duration of the surgery (388.8 vs 344.8 vs 326.9 minutes; P = .004, P = .0004, P ≤ .0001) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (6.00 vs 3.90 vs 3.71; P = .02, P = .79, P = .0006). Multivariable analysis identified that the following factors impacted the operative time: surgeon experience (P = .00006), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .01), portocaval shunt fashioning (P = .0003), early portal section (P = .00001), multiple arterial graft reconstruction (P = .03), and the length of the retrohepatic inferior vena covered by segment 1 (P = .0006). Independent risk factors for increased blood loss were surgeon experience (P = .0001), previous upper abdominal surgery (P = .002), the retrohepatic inferior vena cava encirclement by segment 1 (P = .0001), severe portal hypertension (P = .01), early portal section (P = .001), and low prothrombin time (P = .00001).

CONCLUSION

Easily identifiable factors related to recipients (segment 1 morphology, previous upper abdominal surgery, severe portal hypertension) and to surgeon (operative experience, portocaval shunt fashioning, early portal section, and multiple arterial reconstructions) impact operative time and blood loss during the learning curve of piggyback liver transplantation. These factors can be used for grading the difficulties of liver transplantation to tailor the surgical strategy.

Temporary portal decompression during liver transplantation: a video review of the different techniques

PURPOSE

Temporary portal decompression (TPD) during liver transplantation (LT) remains a divisive technical issue in the liver transplant community. In this video-based article, we show the technical details of the different techniques used for TPD during LT.

METHODS

An early portal section, before liver mobilization, should be preferred in order to achieve hepatectomy of a totally devascularized liver. Portal decompression can be achieved through direct right portocaval shunts and indirect portosystemic shunts (i.e., mesentericosaphenous and portosaphenous shunts).

RESULTS

The preference for direct portocaval or indirect portosystemic shunts is tailored on patients and anatomical characteristics. Each of these three techniques presents specific indications, limitations, and advantages.

CONCLUSION

TPD during LT can be achieved through different techniques that aim to facilitate the recipient hepatectomy, reduce the blood loss, and maintain hemodynamic stability.

Can Preoperative Multidetector Computed Tomography Identify Predictive Features of Difficult Native Hepatectomy at Liver Transplantation?

BACKGROUND

Native hepatectomy represents the most demanding surgical step during orthotopic whole liver transplantation (LT). The surgical risk assessment of LT candidates is currently mainly based on clinical and laboratory data, but even preoperative imaging data may be predictive of a complex native hepatectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective study on a cohort of 110 LT recipients was conducted. The radiologic variables investigated on pre-LT multidetector computed tomography scan were the length of the retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC-L), volume of the dorsal liver sector (DLS-V), complete encirclement of the IVC by the DLS (IVC-CE), max diameter of the native liver (L-D), max diameter of the spleen (S-D), and presence of large spontaneous portosystemic shunts (SPSS). The parameters defining complex native hepatectomy were the operative time, number of red blood cell (RBC) units transfused, IVC replacement technique switch, and post-LT relaparotomy for major bleeding.

RESULTS

In a multivariate analysis, the operative time was predicted by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis (regression coefficient [RC]: 18.237, P = .009), S-D (RC: 3.733, P = .007), and IVC-CE (RC: 20.174, P = .01); the RBC units transfused by an history of gastroesophageal variceal bleeding (RC: 2.503, P = .039), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (RC: .259, P = .039), and L-D (RC: -0.519, P = .027); the switch to a IVC replacement technique by L-D (odds ratio [OR]: 0.641, P = .028) and IVC-L (OR: 1.065, P = .023); and the relaparotomy for bleeding by L-D (OR: 0.632, confidence interval [CI]: 0.437 to 0.916, P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-LT multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) seems to be a very useful tool in the surgical risk assessment of LT candidates.

UPPER MIDLINE INCISION IN RECIPIENTS OF DECEASED-DONORS LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

BACKGROUND

Liver transplant (LT) is the only effective and long-lasting option for patients with end-stage liver disease. Innovations and refinements in surgical techniques occurred with the advent of transplants with partial grafts and laparoscopy. Despite these modifications, the abdominal incision remains with only few changes.

AIM

Demonstrate the experience with the upper midline incision in LT recipients with whole liver grafts from deceased donors.

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients submitted to LT. Data were collected from the recipients who performed the surgical procedure through the upper midline incision.

RESULTS

The upper midline incision was used in 20 LT, 19 of which were performed in adult recipients. The main cause was liver disease secondary to alcohol. Male, BMI>25 kg/m² and MELD greater than 20 were prevalent in the study. Biliary complications occurred in two patients. Hemoperitoneum was an indication for reoperation at one of the receptors. Complication of the surgical wound occurred in two patients, who presented superficial surgical site infection and evisceration (omental). Two re-transplant occurred in the first postoperative week due to severe graft dysfunction and hepatic artery thrombosis, which were performed with the same incision, without the need to increase surgical access. There were two deaths due to severe graft dysfunction after re-transplant in 72 h and respiratory sepsis with multiple organ dysfunction in the third week.

CONCLUSION

The upper midline incision can be safely used in LT recipients with whole grafts from deceased donors. However, receptor characteristics and hepatic graft size should be considered in the option of abdominal surgical access.